Top court refuses to hear cases of U.S. deserters

[brien]

.... but there is no good cause in this, and most of the country hates the war, so where's the sacrafice for a good cause?

I don't recall this being in their volunteer agreement when they joined up of their own free will.

to express their freedom of choice and knowing what is right and what is wrong, and if they feel what they would be doing would be wrong, then they have the right to refuse in my opinion.

They freely gave up their choice when they signed on the dotted line. The right thing to do is to honor their commitment to the USA.

Then all of a sudden came the fake wars and the fake principles..... speculations to start wars.... lies to get profit. Soldier's lives for things that were no risk to the people they were intrusted to protect

.

Nobody forced these guys to join up. They volunteered while the phony wars were already historical fact. They can't say they didn't know.

There is no excuse for these guys. They made a choice that wasn't their's to make by going AWOL and now they have to pay the price. They need to get the courage you assign to them and return to the US to face the music.

[brien]

these guys probably signed up to DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY, not INVADE INNOCENT COUNTRIES.

They signed up to serve their country, not second guess their orders. If volunteers who enlist could pick and choose their orders, we wouldn't have much of a military. We would have chaos.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius But personally, I feel there should be exceptions for cases like this.... however that would require the Canadian Government to rule the War in Iraq as officially illegal in some fasion.... which in turn would basically destroy what little relations there are between Canada and the US....

The illegality is in the fact that Congress did not declare war. Such a declaration is required under the U. S. Constitution.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien I don't recall this being in their volunteer agreement when they joined up of their own free will.

To me it's irrelevent and I will explain shortly below

They freely gave up their choice when they signed on the dotted line. The right thing to do is to honor their commitment to the USA.

Then shouldn't the US honor their commitment in not sending them in Harm's Way for an unjust war?

Sacraficing one's life for oil, profits and political gains/losses, is not just, nor is it a valid reason to seend your people off to die and/or kill others who pose no threat to your nation. My explination is if you can not trust your own country to use your assets and sacrifices for something good, just and for the right reasons, then why should the government hold trust to these people to going blindly to their potiential deaths?

Nobody forced these guys to join up. They volunteered while the phony wars were already historical fact. They can't say they didn't know.

So they should expect to get screwed over by their own government when they join up? ok.... that sure will help them in having faith in the country they wish to risk their lives for.

I imagine most of these people figured the country learned from Vietnam and what happens when you try to start a war in order to change a government in another country.

There is no excuse for these guys. They made a choice that wasn't their's to make by going AWOL and now they have to pay the price. They need to get the courage you assign to them and return to the US to face the music.

Which apparently is going to happen.

[pahl]

Quote by: Chancellor Quote by: pahl Yes, they deserted the county in a time of need, but the country does not demand that they serve. No, they volunteered and entered into a binding contract with the government.

Yes, a contract and they broke it. I think we both agree on that and that that should lead to some repercussion.

Quote: They diden't desert in the middle of action. They where not responible for putting anyone in imminent danger because they deserted, no more than anyone else that could have enlisted and did not enlist. No, they deserted during a time of war (even if the war is unconstitutional). They didn't have to actually be in a combat action.

Do you agree that these men did not put anyone in danger anymore than any average non-enlisted person? What seperates their actions so much from anyone elses or what in their actions makes the crime a fitting one? And im not talking about what the law says, but rather about what you think is reasonable.

Quote: The only difference between these guys and people that just did not enlist at all is that they walked out on a contract, nothing more. There is no draft factor to it. The draft (conscription) has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Try reading what people write instead of reading into what people write.

Im not sure i understand you last comment but what i meant by saying that there is no draft is that there is no obligation on these people to serve in the first place.

What i purposed was that the only thing that these guys acctually did is walk out on a contract. That is all that they did, and that the severity of that crime is all we need to consider.
So what was lost or taken by these men, or who suffered? And what punishment is fitting for that?

[Zeebadee]

Some in here seem to believe that the military should enlist people, train them, equip them, form them into units, assume they'll do what they've promised, and then allow them to decide on their own the constitutionality and morality of any action they are committed to. How could any national authority ever make realistic plans if this were allowed?

These guys could have (and maybe did, the link doesn't say) apply for conscientious objector status, I think that would be the correct action before considering desertion. Anyway, I doubt that even if they are returned to the U.S. they'll get much of a sentence. I think the military is doing all it can to limit bad PR about bush's war.

[ruksak]

I'll keep this short and sweet.





Cowards.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: pahl Yes, a contract and they broke it. I think we both agree on that and that that should lead to some repercussion.

But it's more than just a contract and we do agree that their breaking the contract and violating their oath should bring repercussions.

Do you agree that these men did not put anyone in danger anymore than any average non-enlisted person? What seperates their actions so much from anyone elses or what in their actions makes the crime a fitting one? And im not talking about what the law says, but rather about what you think is reasonable.

No, I don't agree that they did not put anyone in danger. They were part of a unit and the unit functions as a whole - remove part of the whole and you damage the ability of the whole to function properly. The crime here is that they deserted their country in a time of war and while I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe that severe punishment is reasonable.

Im not sure i understand you last comment but what i meant by saying that there is no draft is that there is no obligation on these people to serve in the first place.

You said, "There is no draft factor to it." Your statement was entirely irrelevant because no one here said there had been a draft. I would have expected you to recognize that fact and not read it into what others write.

What i purposed was that the only thing that these guys acctually did is walk out on a contract. That is all that they did, and that the severity of that crime is all we need to consider.

No, what they did was desert their country in a time of war.

So what was lost or taken by these men, or who suffered? And what punishment is fitting for that?

As I said above, they were part of a unit and the unit functions as a whole - remove part of the whole and you damage the ability of the whole to function properly. The crime here is that they deserted their country in a time of war and while I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe that severe punishment is reasonable.

Do not presume to minimalize the seriousness of their actions.

[another day]

Quote by: ruksak I'll keep this short and sweet. Cowards.

Lol... some people have more on their mind then brainless bravado. Like not wanting to invade innocent sovereign countries and murder a bunch of civilians.

They also may not have wanted to risk their lives for a war that had nothing to do with the American people, and was not protecting anything dear to them. You blame them for that? You blame them for not wanting to die to supposedly free a country half way around the world, that hates them anyways?

[pahl]

Qoute by: Chancellor No, I don't agree that they did not put anyone in danger. They were part of a unit and the unit functions as a whole - remove part of the whole and you damage the ability of the whole to function properly. The crime here is that they deserted their country in a time of war and while I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe that severe punishment is reasonable.

Alright, i was under the impression that we where talking about men that deserted after learning that they would be deployed at a later date.

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who each deserted to Canada in 2004 after learning they were to be deployed to Iraq.

Surely the military would not then deploy the unit in which deserting would have been in, if such things had already been decided, with people missing. They would create units of the people they had at disposal, wouldent they? I dont see how them deserting would lead to lack of manpower or certain skills in a operational unit, unless they actually fled the scene in the middle of serving.

You said, "There is no draft factor to it." Your statement was entirely irrelevant because no one here said there had been a draft. I would have expected you to recognize that fact and not read it into what others write.

You seem to have missunderstood what i meant by that. I simply meant that there was no draft, so people are not obligated to serve. I did not read anything in to any post about a draft and did not try to correct anyone either. Perhaps i was vague, lets just drop that.

Do not presume to minimalize the seriousness of their actions.

Im questioning the seriousness of their actions... thats my whole argument. Show me why their actions are so serious.

[ruksak]

Quote by: another day Lol... some people have more on their mind then brainless bravado. Like not wanting to invade innocent sovereign countries and murder a bunch of civilians. They also may not have wanted to risk their lives for a war that had nothing to do with the American people, and was not protecting anything dear to them. You blame them for that? You blame them for not wanting to die to supposedly free a country half way around the world, that hates them anyways?

Then they shouldn't have joined the Army, should they? They were not asked to do anything illegal. Only to do their duty. The one they signed up for. We cannot have our soldiers running off to Canada every time they have a different political view than does the commander in chief.

[another day]

Quote by: ruksak Then they shouldn't have joined the Army, should they? They were not asked to do anything illegal. Only to do their duty. The one they signed up for. We cannot have our soldiers running off to Canada every time they have a different political view than does the commander in chief.

Quite the opposite, they contend that they were asked to do something illegal - invade iraq. Invading iraq was against international law. It was and still is an illegal war.

If only more soldiers actually stood up for what they believed in, and only fought when it was for a good cause, like protecting your homeland from invaders (like the iraqi insurgents are), then the neo-cons in power wouldn't have the ground force they require to orchestrate aggressive wars on false pretenses for their own financial and political gains.

Do you think these guys would have deserted the army when pearl harbour was attacked and they were asked to fight against the japanese? If they would, then they are cowards. But not in this instance. In this case they have more balls then all the other gutless idiots who blindly go along with whatever the authorities tell them is right. It takes alot of guts to do that, and I think you really know these guys didn't desert because they were scared of going to war. They disagreed with it on a moral level and you know that.

[thx1138]

Quite the opposite, they contend that they were asked to do something illegal - invade iraq. Invading iraq was against international law. It was and still is an illegal war.

True but the U.S. only follows international law when it suits its interest, the rest of the time it could careless about international law.

[Praxius]

Quote by: another day Quite the opposite, they contend that they were asked to do something illegal - invade iraq. Invading iraq was against international law. It was and still is an illegal war. If only more soldiers actually stood up for what they believed in, and only fought when it was for a good cause, like protecting your homeland from invaders (like the iraqi insurgents are), then the neo-cons in power wouldn't have the ground force they require to orchestrate aggressive wars on false pretenses for their own financial and political gains. Do you think these guys would have deserted the army when pearl harbour was attacked and they were asked to fight against the japanese? If they would, then they are cowards. But not in this instance. In this case they have more balls then all the other gutless idiots who blindly go along with whatever the authorities tell them is right. It takes alot of guts to do that, and I think you really know these guys didn't desert because they were scared of going to war. They disagreed with it on a moral level and you know that.

Agreed.... to me, just being a brother to my fellow soldiers and wanting to look after them to make sure they don't get killed is fools gold.... what exactly are you going to do when an IED blows your buddies to bits? The only good you will be doing is watching your friends blow up and die around you and there's not much you can do unless you're lucky enough to get into a decent fire fight..... so basically some think this is all that is needed to be not called a coward.

Following orders blindly isn't a heroic trait, it's foolish. Any military that just wants foot soldiers who don't actually use critical thinking is a military which will fail.

Exactly how many major mistakes and screw ups over the years have occured from soldiers saying "I was just following my orders?"

This is a perfect example of this, as everybody is just following their orders, and this moronic war keeps going on, because nobody will bother to put brains into what's going on, except these guys who left in protest, not just because of the war, but because of their own lives and their families.

To me, I don't see how heroic it is to blindly run off to some war nobody approves up, to get killed and that's that.... great.... one more faceless name on the wall for something that does nobody any good except the rich in power.

Sorry, but I imagine these guy's families and future plans are more important then a country willing to chew them up in the meat grinder without regard.

Not to mention the prospects of any decent assistance from Veterans Affairs seems to go down the drain more and more each day.... oh.... that is if you survive with most of your body intact to return home breathing. I've been seeing plenty of garbage about the US VA just in the last week alone in US news agencies.

[Charlatan]

So this guy jumped ship when it came time for him to serve time in his military core in Iraq and fled to Canada? Well if he were to stay in Canada, they would be saying that he is a free man that has done nothing wrong. Has he done something wrong? He has deserted his country, but his country wasn't being invaded it was invading, and his excuse is that it was a moral reason for leaving. So it is not a case of not defending your country, it is a case of not jumping on a boat to go and shoot at some other guys. If your elected government tells you to go and shoot at some guys coming at you, it is good, but if your government tells you to go and shoot at some guys far away, is that good? It is for the well being - supposedly - of another, but does one man, or group of men carry that authority, to say that you must kill another far away for another that is not your responsibility, and let's face it, defending Iraq is not this guys responsibility, so, he did not go to do as some guy wished him to do somewhere for someone he was not responsible for.

What is an oath? An oath is a way decietful men get honest men to say things that they mean at the time and then twist them around so that they suite any given circumstance that comes along. This is what the American Government does to it's soldiers, it makes them say they will defend their country then twists them around and sends them off to fight for another countries benefit, maybe even the world's peacekeeping benefits, but not what they said they were there to do, which is protect their home. If Iraq had declared war on America and had ships based in close by waters that is one thing, but to invade a country reduced to rebels fighting for their 'rights' or whatever can be said to be a moral reason. How can rebels invade another land? What threat do they pose? America might want to squash off all people that resist them and there will be no other nations left in South America and the Middle East! Once a country is neutralised, as clearly this one is, it no longer poses a threat and invading it cannot be called protecting America.

The problem is that in two thousand and four there were many people fighting still, but even then those people did not pose a threat to America did they? If a country declares war on your country and they do not pose a threat it is not justified to go in there and take them over is it? So, is it justified to go into a country that is not at loggerheads with yours and try to change them? This man thought it wasn't and ran away. So, the fact that you are under contract to do something vaguely similar, and refuse, is that a reason to be imprisoned?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius Following orders blindly isn't a heroic trait, it's foolish. Any military that just wants foot soldiers who don't actually use critical thinking is a military which will fail. Exactly how many major mistakes and screw ups over the years have occurred from soldiers saying "I was just following my orders?

They weren't asked to do anything illegal. They were not told to fire directly on civilians. They were not told to dig a mass grave, execute and summarily bury the dead. They were not asked to do anything illegal.

Receiving orders to deploy to a war zone; LEGAL. No objection is warranted by the soldier.

Receiving orders to shoot civilians, dig a mass grave, torture a suspected combatant; ILLEGAL. An objection or evasive action is warranted by the soldier.

Quote by: another_day Quite the opposite, they contend that they were asked to do something illegal - invade Iraq. Invading iraq was against international law. It was and still is an illegal war.

According to you. But not the international community. Many many other nations took part in Iraq. You cannot substitute reality with your slanted anti-American opinion. Reality still stands, and your opinion is muted.

How dysfunctional would our military become if this was common place? These soldiers signed up for the Army for college money and realized "Oh shit, I actually have to go to war? F*ck that, I'm going to Canada". I'm sure many of the brave soldiers in Iraq probably feel the same way, politically speaking. But they do their duty as soldiers. They see through the commitment they signed up for. They pick up the limbs of their fallen brothers and they sally forth. They didn't run off to Canada to smoke that Northern Lights. They were men.

They have no business making military decisions for their country. What if our grandfathers had this attitude on a wide scale during WWII? "I don't believe invading Germany is right. I'm going to Canada".

As well, what proof do you have that they are actually are opposed to the war on some moral level? Huh? Maybe thats just an excuse. Maybe they only signed up so they could get money for college. Maybe they didn't see a war coming when they signed up. Maybe they're full of shit and this is an excuse.

Do you have any idea how defunct and utterly dysfunctional our military would be if this was an acceptable practice?

Then what?

These clowns are traitors and they deserve a penalty befitting a coward. They deserve to confront what they escaped.

I say make them spend 6 months in a Baghdad ER tossin limbs into garbage bags.

WARNING: This video is extremely graphic. 1:04 in total length. An excellent documentary.
Iraq war brutality - Baghdad ER

[Praxius]

Quote by: Charlatan So this guy jumped ship when it came time for him to serve time in his military core in Iraq and fled to Canada? Well if he were to stay in Canada, they would be saying that he is a free man that has done nothing wrong. Has he done something wrong? He has deserted his country, but his country wasn't being invaded it was invading, and his excuse is that it was a moral reason for leaving. So it is not a case of not defending your country, it is a case of not jumping on a boat to go and shoot at some other guys. If your elected government tells you to go and shoot at some guys coming at you, it is good, but if your government tells you to go and shoot at some guys far away, is that good? It is for the well being - supposedly - of another, but does one man, or group of men carry that authority, to say that you must kill another far away for another that is not your responsibility, and let's face it, defending Iraq is not this guys responsibility, so, he did not go to do as some guy wished him to do somewhere for someone he was not responsible for. What is an oath? An oath is a way decietful men get honest men to say things that they mean at the time and then twist them around so that they suite any given circumstance that comes along. This is what the American Government does to it's soldiers, it makes them say they will defend their country then twists them around and sends them off to fight for another countries benefit, maybe even the world's peacekeeping benefits, but not what they said they were there to do, which is protect their home. If Iraq had declared war on America and had ships based in close by waters that is one thing, but to invade a country reduced to rebels fighting for their 'rights' or whatever can be said to be a moral reason. How can rebels invade another land? What threat do they pose? America might want to squash off all people that resist them and there will be no other nations left in South America and the Middle East! Once a country is neutralised, as clearly this one is, it no longer poses a threat and invading it cannot be called protecting America. The problem is that in two thousand and four there were many people fighting still, but even then those people did not pose a threat to America did they? If a country declares war on your country and they do not pose a threat it is not justified to go in there and take them over is it? So, is it justified to go into a country that is not at loggerheads with yours and try to change them? This man thought it wasn't and ran away. So, the fact that you are under contract to do something vaguely similar, and refuse, is that a reason to be imprisoned?

Agreed... being forced to be a murderer and invader is not what these guys signed up for.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius Agreed... being forced to be a murderer and invader is not what these guys signed up for.

They signed up for the United States military, not the Boy Scouts of America. When you do so you do it with the knowledgeable aforethought that you may have to use your rifle against men whom you have no personal quarrel. When you sign up for the Army you do so with trust and understanding that you will not be asked to commit war crimes. Soldiers have no business using their personal political views as an excuse to evade their duty.

This behavior will not be tolerated and swift, severe punishment should be handed down. Were this the result of the draft, then I would be in full support of these men.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak They weren't asked to do anything illegal. They were not told to fire directly on civilians. They were not told to dig a mass grave, execute and summarily bury the dead. They were not asked to do anything illegal. Receiving orders to deploy to a war zone; LEGAL. No objection is warranted by the soldier.

But they are firing on civilians due to the enviroment they have been placed in, the orders which have been given to them, the mental issues most of these soldiers have gone through, it's not just being sent off to a war zone and doing their job.... it's everything around it.... and you can not ignore what is going on around you and the affect it has on you.... and I'm not talking about the typical effects of war on a soldier in a "Normal Justified" war.

Orders to deploy in a War Zone by terminology alone they have nothing to question..... but when the rest of the world, including your own country states this war as illegal, then following those orders are also in turn illegal and those soldiers are contributing to this illegal act.

Receiving orders to shoot civilians, dig a mass grave, torture a suspected combatant; ILLEGAL. An objection or evasive action is warranted by the soldier.

Clearly you have not been reading much of what I have been reporting in these forums, as many of these cases in which shooting civilians, torturing suspects for information, holding an enemy officer's family hostage, all seemed to have been justified in one manner or another..... why should these guys who deserted be branded the evil villians for actually seeing what the war truly is and not giving up their human principles in the process?

You know there is a few good reasons I could list as to why the suicide rate of US soldiers who fought in Iraq is so high.

According to you. But not the international community. Many many other nations took part in Iraq. You cannot substitute reality with your slanted anti-American opinion. Reality still stands, and your opinion is muted.

Denied... The international community does see this war as illegal.... hell the UN claimed it was illegal before the US invaded.... go see some news and opinions from other countries besides the US for once.

Tony Blair got suckered into the false information provided by Bush and his adminiatration and he had aknowleged this mistake. Australia is also in the processes of trying to get their troops out of there...

But the head of the snake in this situation is located in the US, and trying to pass blame over to other countries is what I find not part of reality and thus muted, as you put it.

How dysfunctional would our military become if this was common place?

This wouldn't happen if your country restricted your forces to be used in only meaningful wars which directly affect your nation.

These soldiers signed up for the Army for college money and realized "Oh shit, I actually have to go to war? F*ck that, I'm going to Canada".

This is not what they have claimed were their reasons for desertion, not were they their reasons for joinging.... pretty ignorant.

I'm sure many of the brave soldiers in Iraq probably feel the same way, politically speaking. But they do their duty as soldiers. They see through the commitment they signed up for. They pick up the limbs of their fallen brothers and they sally forth. They didn't run off to Canada to smoke that Northern Lights. They were men.

Once again..... a matter of opinion.... since this is an invasion, and since it is an unjust war, my opinion is that only blood thirsty, biggoted and ignorant murderers who can't think for themselves could find justification in this and call themselves a hero.

They have no business making military decisions for their country. What if our grandfathers had this attitude on a wide scale during WWII? "I don't believe invading Germany is right. I'm going to Canada".

That wouldn't be the case, as during that time Canada also had a Draft, there was no escape to this war, and WWII had some more justifications and principles to stand for then this.... a comparison of Iraq to WWII is pretty silly.

As well, what proof do you have that they are actually are opposed to the war on some moral level? Huh? Maybe thats just an excuse. Maybe they only signed up so they could get money for college. Maybe they didn't see a war coming when they signed up. Maybe they're full of shit and this is an excuse.

Maybe it was.... but if they thought that when joining up, then they were stupid..... but somehow they seemed to have gotten some brains in forming a plausable story in which everybody believes and finds logical.... so this isn't the case.

But now you're getting into further speculations where there is no evidence.... I am basing my opinion and views on the provided evidence.

These clowns are traitors and they deserve a penalty befitting a coward. They deserve to confront what they escaped.

A coward for wanting to still be around to help raise their families rather then being cannon fodder in some forign land? You have some odd priorities.

I say make them spend 6 months in a Baghdad ER tossin limbs into garbage bags.

What exactly will this acomplish? They already oppose the war, they already know what's going on over there in which they want no part of. Asking them to clean up the bloody messes in which everybody else is responsible for?

Is this a punnishment thing or something you think will teach them a lesson?

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak They signed up for the United States military, not the Boy Scouts of America. When you do so you do it with the knowledgeable aforethought that you may have to use your rifle against men whom you have no personal quarrel. When you sign up for the Army you do so with trust and understanding that you will not be asked to commit war crimes. Soldiers have no business using their personal political views as an excuse to evade their duty.

So what happens when finally the government turns these soldiers against their own people due to some revolution? Not question what they are doing and mow down the "Terrorists?"

I am sure in this worst case scenario, your above logic will be put to the test.